scientologyfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:World Institute of Scientology Enterprises
OK, this article is an example of what I'm talking about. It's the Wikipedia article which I've transferred over here and given a trim. I removed outdated info (the Hubbard College site no longer exists), false info (placing wanted ads is not a "controversial tactic"), and misleading info (the whole "Dentistry" rant is malarkey). Particlebeam 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :All right. You can get away with that one. :) I wince a bit at all the links to CofS sites but we'll see, we'll see. (Shouldn't it be "businesses" in a couple of places?) Paul 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :: You're still confusing me. Why wouldn't we have plenty of links to CoS sites on a Scientology wiki? Why would you wince at them? You expressed concern before about not infringing on CoS trademarks and copyrights, so isn't one of the best ways to make sure they're appeased in that department is to provide links to their own pages about any given subject that we choose to delve into in detail here? If this article makes you wince and grudgingly have to let me "get away with" this one, then we definitely seem to be at cross purposes here. Particlebeam 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :::"Scientology" is not synonymous with "The CofS". The main page of this wiki gives the two main meanings of the word, namely the subject as organized by LRH, and the official CofS organizations and their customers. But there are a large number of people who consider themselves Scientologists, who make use of the tech, who wish to have nothing further to do with the CofS and who object to false "spin" put on some aspects of the subject by the CofS. I do not wish to present the view that the _subject_ of Scn is inseparable from the _Church_ of Scn, as it is not. It is easy not to infringe on copyrights and trademarks: don't submit copyrighted work without permission. And there is up-to-date info on CofS trademarks in this wiki. There is no need to try and appease anyone regarding them. :::I assume anyone providing a link on anything is doing so mainly to promote the site linked to. That assumption is not always 100% accurate, but I would say it is close. The purpose of this wiki is in regard to Scn, not in regard to the CofS. If someone wants to find out about the CofS's official sites on WISE, it doesn't require any great insight to go to Google and enter search terms like "WISE" and "Scientology". We are indeed at cross purposes if your main concern is to promote the CofS. That isn't the purpose of this wiki at all. Paul 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :::: I see. This should probably be made a lot clearer on the front page of the Wiki, then, because it's taken several back-and-forth posts to get you to state what you have just stated. I misinterpreted the front page's statement that this Wiki is "not a public relations agency" as meaning that the tone here wouldn't concern it itself necessarily with being polite - meaning that, unlike official Church sites, we would feel free to be as critical of the critics as we want to be. I see now that I couldn't have been more wrong. And as long as the CoS and RTC hold the copyrights and trademarks, they are inseparable from Scientology in any way that I find meaningful. ::::Also, you're certainly correct that this information is easily Googled and obtained, so then one might ask what is the point anyway? What information would ideally be provided here that wouldn't be easily Googled and obtained? Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely astonished at the response I've gotten here. Particlebeam 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC) :::::PB, you are sounding exactly like an OSA op. I'm not going to discuss things forever with you--go and tie up some critics' time on ars or OCMB or somewhere. I need to work on my Robot TRs 0-4 course :), which is now over 50% done. Now, _that_ is something that is astonishing. It might be hard to believe, but I've been trying to wave a white flag here. I do not mind if the CofS edits this wiki providing the articles are honest and do not especially promote the CofS. You know--stuff above 2.0 on the tone scale and not 1.1. If you don't like my attitude, then don't come here. The Net's a big place. Paul 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) ::::::Bah! y'all are not at cross purposes. This site is a resource for people that want to learn about Scientology without all the lies, obfuscation and entheta on Wikipedia. Paul is just grumpy about the CofS, as are many folks. But everyone that writes here is respectful of the technology of Scn to greater or lesser degrees. I will admit to being a bit shocked when Paul told me some things about how the tech was wrong (gasp!) on one minor point. But then I got to chuckling about it when I realized how deeply KSW was ingrained in me. The truth is there are freezoners and active CofS and inactive CofS and others here. We are not always going to be in 100% lockstep on everything. But the tech is amazing. The tech should be learnable by those that seek it. There is no place currently on the web where it can be learned. This can become an invaluable resource for professional auditors in and out of the church. ::::::I personally am convinced that if LRH had lived to see the internet as it is now, he would have put all the tech out there for people to see and use. Face it - NOTHING SELLS SCIENTOLOGY LIKE THE TECH. The blathering ABOUT the tech, pro or con, is just sound and fury. The tech is what converts people. The tech is what excites them and helps them. Can you imagine what he would have thought about being able to hyperlink to the definition of every word in a given issue? EVERY definition a simple click away??? Maybe a companion application that records your word chains and helps with student points? Click on the term 'floating needle' and SEE A SHORT VIDEO OF A FLOATING NEEDLE!!! Have a question about how to run a certain procedure? One click... watch a model session. LRH would have been astounded with what could be done. Look, having the data in bound books is a barrier to study, albeit a small one. Having to look up a word in a hulking dictionary as thick as your thigh is a barrier to study. HTTP and the hyperlink eliminate these barriers. LRH would have embraced them with eager eyes and a racing heart. What was his intent? What was his purpose? I believe his intent was exactly what he said it was: To help his fellow man. I really believe that. And that is my purpose here - to help my fellow man. So dig in and write, my friend. Hyperlink your ass off. Create. Create. Create. More pages with each revolution of the earth. ::::::Cross purposes? Bullshit! If your purpose is to assist your fellow man by helping them learn scientology... then WELCOME! That is what we are here to do too. And your help is acceptable to us. ---Slightlyright 01:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)